Small Bus Econ (2016) 47:633–656
DOI 10.1007/s11187-016-9756-3
A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: the role
of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial
university ecosystem
Christopher S. Hayter
Accepted: 7 June 2016 / Published online: 21 June 2016
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Universities play a well-established role in
regional economic growth, one contribution to which
is academic entrepreneurship, the establishment and
support of faculty and graduate student spinoff
companies based on university research. A vibrant
literature examines the general contributions of uni-
versities within regional innovation ecosystems while
another strain of literature examines individual inter-
mediaries, such as technology licensing offices and
incubators, in support of the university’s economic
development mission. Little research exists, however,
that conceptualizes the structure and function of an
entrepreneurial university ecosystem. This paper
seeks to address this gap in the literature by examining
the composition, contributions, and evolution of social
networks among faculty and graduate student entre-
preneurs and the role of knowledge intermediaries
therein. While our investigation supports an emerging
literature that finds academic entrepreneurs are typi-
cally limited by their own homophilous social net-
works, we also find that spinoff success relies upon
academic and non-academic contacts who connect
faculty and students to other social networks important
to spinoff success. We investigate how by creating a
taxonomy of social network evolution among spinoffs;
C. S. Hayter (&)
Center for Organization Research and Design, School of
Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix,
AZ 85004, USA
e-mail: chayter@asu.edu
the results show that the contributions of universities
depend on the existence and interrelationship of
loosely coordinated, heterogeneous knowledge inter-
mediaries guided by a strong collective ethos to
encourage and support academic entrepreneurship.
Keywords University spinoffs
Social networks

Entrepreneurship
Innovation ecosystems

Innovation policy
Entrepreneurial universities
1 Introduction
The recent financial crisis and an increasingly com-
petitive global marketplace have heightened interest
among policymakers and scholars alike regarding the
potential economic development role of colleges and
universities. While higher education institutions play a
well-understood role in the production of new knowl-
edge and human capital (Utterback 1994; Romer
1990), Audretsch (2014) argues that the role of
universities is to provide leadership necessary to
advance the entrepreneurial society. Thus, only by
realizing this leadership role, manifested through the
creation of entrepreneurial thinking, actions, institu-
tions, and entrepreneurial capital, can universities
fulfill their economic and social potential.
One important contribution of the entrepreneurial
university relates to academic entrepreneurship, the
establishment of new spinoff companies based on
123
634
technologies stemming from university research
(Shane 2004). University spinoffs provide an impor-
tant vehicle to generate new innovations, accelerate
productivity, and create jobs and prosperity for
regional economies (van Praag and Versloot 2007;
Shane 2004; Doutriaux 1987). Further, academic
entrepreneurship can provide an important signal to
future academic entrepreneurs as well as surround-
ing regions of a university’s commitment to
entrepreneurship. For our purposes, spinoffs also
serve as a window through which the specific
entrepreneurial contributions of universities may be
examined (Urbano and Guerrero 2013; Svensson
et al. 2012).
The entrepreneurial development of a university
spinoff—and potential commercial success—offers an
outcome-based measure of regional economic devel-
opment, yet research shows that success among
academic entrepreneurs is anything but guaranteed
(Druilhe and Garnsey 2004; Franklin et al. 2001;
Hayter 2013a, 2015; Mosey and Wright 2007).
Specifically, the entrepreneurial decision and spinoff
establishment—a proxy of entrepreneurial propen-
sity—are often tied to factors internal to the university,
including faculty motivations (Hayter 2011), aca-
demic norms (Franklin et al. 2001), and internal
culture (Feldman and Desrochers 2004). Universities,
regions, and national governments have also created
myriad policies and programs in an effort to encourage
and support academic entrepreneurship (Bradley et al.
2013a). Specific programs range from technology
incubators (Mian 1996, 1997) and entrepreneurship
education programs (Pittaway and Cope 2007) to the
more recent emergence of university proof-of-concept
centers (PoCCs) (Hayter and Link 2015; Bradley et al.
2013b).
What is missing within the literature is a concep-
tualization of what we term entrepreneurial university
ecosystems: the strategic and collective actions of
various organizational components—what we term
knowledge intermediaries—in order to maximize both
the entrepreneurial and innovative contributions of
universities. In an effort to bridge this auspicious gap
within the literature, this paper will compare the
composition and contributions of social networks
among academic entrepreneurs and examine how
these networks coevolve with the developmental
trajectory of university spinoffs. Further, it examines
the specific impact of policies and programs intended
123
C. S. Hayter
to encourage the formation of university spinoffs and
support their success.
To do this, we take a mixed-method, methodolog-
ical approach (Creswell 2002), administering a social
network analysis (SNA) survey to a theoretically
relevant population of nascent graduate student and
faculty entrepreneurs1 who have established spinoff
companies based on technologies stemming from
federally funded research. These graduate student and
faculty entrepreneurs are (or were) from engineering
schools located at universities within New York State,
an area of critical economic and scientific importance.
Subsequently, two rounds of interviews—approxi-
mately 2 years apart—are conducted with SNA survey
respondents in order to understand the specific contri-
butions of their network contacts and how their
networks evolve over time. Network data are concur-
rently compared to the developmental status of each
spinoff by employing Vohora et al. (2004) critical
juncture framework.
Our paper makes four distinct contributions to our
understanding of the entrepreneurial university: (1)
Following the extant literature, we affirm the impor-
tance of organizational ‘cross logics’ for obtaining
valuable resources and contacts within the unique
context of academic entrepreneurship, (2) due to this
context academic entrepreneurs must rely on knowl-
edge intermediaries—network boundary spanners—to
improve the developmental chances of their spinoff,
(3) related, the specific structure and contributions of
intermediary networks relate to the likelihood and
speed of spinoff development, and (4) though more
research is needed, the collective and strategic actions
1
This definition of university spinoff differs slightly from
Shane (2004), for example, who defines a spinoffs as a company
established by faculty based on technologies licensed from their
respective university. First, our inquiry is not limited to
university faculty; emerging research shows that graduate
students play a critical role in the establishment and manage-
ment of university spinoffs (e.g., Boh et al. 2012; Hayter 2016).
Second, all spinoffs in the sample are based on technologies that
were disclosed to their respective university’s TTO. However,
four spinoffs in the sample do not have licenses. In two cases, the
TTO could not find a licensee for patented technology and
spinoffs were established once these technologies were released
to the inventor. In the other two cases, the university decided not
to pursue a patent, releasing the technologies back to the
inventor. We nonetheless posit that spinoffs went through the
‘formal’ technology transfer process and remain a critical
vehicle for the dissemination and commercialization of new
knowledge.
A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success
of multiple academic and non-academic knowledge
intermediaries appear to be the foundation for vibrant
entrepreneurial university ecosystems, compared to
other, single intermediary structures. We discuss these
interrelated elements and create a taxonomy of social
network evolution to illustrate our findings.
Toward this end, we discuss the academic literature
related to business and university ecosystems, con-
ceptualizations of knowledge intermediaries, and
network-related factors of success for university
spinoffs in Sect. 2. In Sect. 3, we introduce our
methodology while our empirical results are presented
in Sect. 4, including a taxonomy for an entrepreneurial
university ecosystem. Section 5 includes an in-depth
discussion of the findings while Sect. 6 provides
conclusions for research and public policy.
2 Previous research
2.1 Business and regional innovation ecosystems
Moore (1993) is credited with coining the term
business ecosystem, the coevolution of capabilities
among multiple companies working ‘cooperatively to
support new products, satisfy customer needs, and
eventually incorporate the next round of innovations
(p. 76).’ Christensen and Rosenbloom (1995) build on
Moore’s work by describing business ecosystems as
nested commercial systems where each player con-
tributes a specific component of an overarching
solution. In turn, ecosystems are comprised of inter-
organizational networks that provide entrepreneurial
firms with resources and information to navigate a
constantly changing competitive environment (Zara
and Nambisan 2012). Further, business ecosystems
can vary by technology, network intensity, and
organizational variety, while cooperative and collab-
orative relationships exist simultaneously (Adner and
Kapoor 2010; Iansiti and Levien 2004; Moore 1993).
Ecosystem dynamics lead to ‘an economic community
supported by a foundation of interacting organiza-
tions—the organisms of the business world’ (Moore
1993, p. 23).
Concurrent research in the economic geography
literature broadly defines regional innovation ecosys-
tems primarily as the location-based transmission and
absorption of knowledge (Saxenian 1994; Piore and
Sabel 1984). These views seek to explain industrial
635
dynamism and the corresponding economic success (or
failure) of regions through a variety of conceptual
lenses, including ‘entrepreneurial support networks’
(Kenney and von Burg 1999), ‘incubator regions’
(Schoonhoven and Eisenhardt 1989), the ‘social struc-
ture of innovation’ (Florida and Kenney 1988), or an
innovation or entrepreneurial ‘ecosystem’ (Bahrami and
Evans 2000). Recent research, however, questions the
primacy of clustering effects, especially within the life
sciences, an area for which universities are particularly
well suited to contribute (Kenney and Patton 2005).
Powell et al. (2009) relate the emergence and
institutionalization (or lack thereof) of innovative
regions within the life science industry to cross-
boundary transposition: The conversion and trans-
portation of status and experience gained from one
organizational network to another (domain). The
authors find that while successful life science clusters
(i.e., Boston, Bay Area, and San Diego) once started
with different anchor organizations (and, thus, evolved
differently), they have all developed robust inter-
organizational affiliations buttressed by labor mobility
and cultural change (also see Whittington et al. 2009;
Casper 2007). Other, less successful life science-
focused regions (e.g., Los Angeles, New York City,
Seattle) also possess(ed) anchor organizations, but
have yet to develop robust inter-organizational ties
even though individual organizations in these regions
may be well connected to organizations outside the
region.
Transposition is made possible by the ability of
organizations to bridge weakly connected—or uncon-
nected—networks. Core explanatory factors are the
(1) the presence of an anchor organization that
provides an initial infrastructure for connections and
field formation needed for collective growth and (2)
the existence of heterogeneous organizational forms
from which different practices, strategies, and rules
can emerge. Relating to anchor organizations, Powell
et al. (2009) find that research universities are critical
for successful cluster formation because they con-
tribute to the continuing advance of science and
technology, but often make poor commercial partners;
the commercialization of technology is unlikely
without a strong private sector presence within a
region (Powell et al. 2009; Owen-Smith and Powell
2004).
In their recent investigation of the Flanders region
of Belgium, Clarysse et al. (2014) differentiate
123
636
between business ecosystems and knowledge ecosys-
tems. The authors find that knowledge ecosystems are
typically disconnected from business ecosystems
needed to apply and commercialize new knowledge.
Further, technology transfer offices (TTOs) and
regional public venture funds often reinforce the
academic nature of university spinoffs rather than
bridge the two disparate ecosystems. In short, accord-
ing to the extant literature on ecosystems, regional
economic dynamism and growth are a function of the
interconnectivity of disparate, yet collectively sup-
portive organizations (Whittington et al. 2009).
2.2 University knowledge intermediaries
While business ecosystem literature remains largely
silent on the role of universities, the regional ecosys-
tem perspective views research universities—and its
supporting policy and programmatic infrastructure—
as a critical component (Bahrami and Evans 2000;
Saxenian 1994). As mentioned, Clarysse et al. (2014)
takes an expansive view of knowledge ecosystems,
including universities. A separate line of research
explores the role of intermediaries in cluster develop-
ment; intermediaries are defined as organizations that
perform various services, including brokering, facil-
itating, and promoting, among other value-added
activities important to regional economic growth
(Laur et al. 2012). Yusef similarly describes the role
of so-called knowledge intermediaries, organizations
critical to the exchange of new knowledge between
universities and society, especially market-based firms
(Yusef 2008).
Yusef (2008) articulates four categories of knowl-
edge intermediary: (1) general purpose: organizations
that produce and disseminate knowledge with research
universities and their core capabilities representing the
most common type; (2) specialized: organizations,
such as a technology transfer office, that seeks out new
forms of knowledge and aids in its transmission vis-à-
vis licensing to commercial users; (3) financial:
organizations such as venture capitalist or angel
investor that supplies risk capital and provides man-
agement know-how, technical skills, and links to other
supportive contacts; and (4) institutional: organiza-
tions, often public agencies, that offer incentives to
encourage knowledge transfer and facilitate interac-
tion among researchers and firms (but may not have
123
C. S. Hayter
the necessary financial assets needed to be a financial
intermediary).
Following Laur et al. (2012) and Yusef (2008), we
define knowledge intermediaries as organizations that
facilitate knowledge exchange between universities
and external stakeholders through the creation of
bidirectional, value-added network relationships.
Knowledge intermediary activities might include the
development of a formal entrepreneurship curriculum
and research agenda, among other initiatives, that
relate to a university’s core teaching, research, and
service mission (Jong 2008; Pittaway and Cope 2007).
Activities might also include a willingness to create,
transform, and sunset related academic entrepreneur-
ship intermediaries writ large: To what extent does the
mission of a university promote entrepreneurship
(Audretsch 2014; Urbano and Guerrero 2013; Youtie
and Shipiro 2008; Feldman and Derochers 2004)?
Our broad definition of knowledge intermediaries
allows inclusion of myriad academic entrepreneurship
organizations, including technology transfer offices
(Bradley et al. 2013a, b; Phan and Siegel 2006),
technology incubators (Mian 1996, 1997, 2011),
science parks (Mian et al. 2012; Link and Scott
2006, 2007; Siegel et al. 2003), university early-stage
capital funds (Croce et al. 2014), and PoCCs (Hayter
and Link 2015; Bradley et al. 2013a, b). Specialized
research-oriented intermediaries, such as cooperative
research centers (Gray and Boardman 2010) and
industry-consulting vehicles (O’Gorman et al. 2008),
can socialize faculty and students to market-oriented
dynamics important for motivating the spinoff
decision.
The importance of financial intermediaries, such as
angel and venture capitalists, to academic entrepreneur-
ship is well established within the literature (Hayter
2013a; Wright et al. 2007; Shane and Stuart 2002).
Research on institutional intermediaries is less devel-
oped though recent studies examine the impact of
government funding schemes, such as the Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program in the
USA (e.g., Link and Ruhm 2009) and government
venture capital funds (e.g., Colombo et al. 2016).
Further, regional institutional intermediaries, such as
the San Diego CONNECT program, are especially
important for building strong social ties among the
academic, business, and venture capital communities
located within specific regions (Walcott 2002).
A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success
While research on the efficacy of the aforemen-
tioned intermediaries is at various levels of maturity,2
most scholars find ‘mixed’ results; the impact of
knowledge intermediaries is dependent on a number of
contextual, managerial, and resource factors (e.g.,
Mian 2011). Important for our investigation, scholars
rarely examine the relationship among the knowledge
intermediaries outlined above. In other words, how do
the knowledge intermediaries reviewed above ‘fit’
together, what are the strategies and techniques used to
conceptualize and manage these components as a
group, and what is their collective impact on spinoff
success?
2.3 Networks and spinoff success
As discussed above, social networks serve as a proxy
for vibrant interrelationships important for economic
dynamism and prosperity (Powell et al. 2009; Whit-
tington et al. 2009). However, aside from a few recent
exceptions (Hayter 2015, 2016; Rasmussen et al.
2011, 2015), few studies empirically examine the
specific structure and related contributions of social
networks to spinoff success, much less the role of
knowledge intermediaries in network evolution.
A robust literature instead shows networks to be
conceptually important for academic entrepreneurship
(e.g., Hayter 2013a; Nicolaou and Birley 2003; Shane
and Cable 2002). Vohora et al. (2004) posit that
networks are pathways through which opportunity
recognition—market insights motivating spinoff
establishment—is achieved. According to Wright
et al. (2007), ‘social resources’—to whom network
contacts are connected—enable firms to obtain tech-
nological, human, and financial resources needed for
spinoff development and success (Shane and Cable
2002). Shane and Stuart (2002) similarly find that
venture and angel investors are more likely to invest in
spinoffs they know or to which they have been referred
by reliable sources; mutual network connections and
2
For example, a voluminous literature examines the structure
and impact of technology transfer offices (Bradley et al.
2013a, b; Phan and Siegel 2006) while scholars have yet to
empirically examine the structure and impact of individual
PoCCs, a relatively new policy innovation (Hayter and Link
2015).
637
trust are important determinants for the receipt of
resources (Coleman 1988; Krackhardt 1999).
Recent research follows the broader entrepreneur-
ship network research finding that networks can also
have a detrimental impact on entrepreneurial perfor-
mance (Gulati et al. 2000; Johannisson and Monsted
1997; Ruef et al. 2003). Academic entrepreneurs
come from the ranks of university faculty, a specific
professional identity and culture subject to high
levels of homophily (Ruef et al. 2003; Bozeman et al.
2001; Crane 1972), which can create a barrier to
entrepreneurial success (Hayter 2013a, 2015).
Specifically, academic entrepreneurs embedded
within non-commercial, academic research environ-
ments typically lack the skills and experiences
important for spinoff success (Mosey and Wright
2007; Wright et al. 2007; Druilhe and Garnsey 2004;
Franklin et al. 2001).
Conversely, university scientists who have ties to
industry, receive industry funding, or possess indus-
try experience are more likely to patent, license, and
establish a university spinoff (O’Gorman et al. 2008;
Dietz and Bozeman 2005; Gulbrandsen and Smeby
2005). Hayter (2013a), for example, finds that the
commercialization success among a sample of
university spinoffs in the USA is dependent on the
presence of ‘external knowledge networks,’ includ-
ing external licenses; joint ventures with other
companies; experienced, professional managers;
and the presence of faculty entrepreneurs with
consulting experience.
In addition to the aforementioned opportunities to
empirically investigate the composition and contribu-
tions of social networks, few studies have empirically
investigated entrepreneurship networks from an evo-
lutionary perspective in order to explain differences in
entrepreneurial development (Jack 2010; Slotte-Kock
and Coviello 2010). From a regional economic
perspective, the ecosystem literature does little to
advance our understanding of how and why knowledge
exchange occurs, especially relating to research uni-
versities (Braunerhjelm et al. 2010; Acs et al. 2009),
not to mention the role of knowledge intermediaries
therein (Yusef 2008). A recent comprehensive review
of the empirical entrepreneurship network literature
(Hayter 2013b) suggests that scholars investigate
entrepreneurship networks employing a knowledge-
based conceptual view, a charge embraced by the
present investigation.
123
638
3 Research approach
This study investigates the role of knowledge inter-
mediaries and their impact on the development of
university spinoffs within New York, a state of critical
importance to the US economy.3 It does so by
investigating the contact composition, contribution,
and evolution of business networks among faculty and
graduate student entrepreneurs whose spinoffs are in
the early stages of spinoff development. We assume
that a knowledge intermediary is an organization
comprised of one or more individuals dedicated to the
dissemination and commercialization of new knowl-
edge generated within universities. The sections below
explain the specific elements of our research approach.
3.1 Conceptualizing entrepreneurial development
We conceptualize entrepreneurial development in
terms of critical junctures (Vohora et al. 2004),
multiple, iterative development milestones. Figure 1
illustrates the four critical junctures, including oppor-
tunity recognition, entrepreneurial commitment, cred-
ibility and sustainability, as well as the associated
resource and network elements associated with each.
Entrepreneurial development and therefore success
are reflected in the forward progression of university a
spinoff though each critical juncture, with the eventual
goal of achieving enterprise sustainability. Forward
progression through a critical juncture is adopted as a
proxy for entrepreneurial success within the present
investigation. Vohora et al. (2004) define each critical
3
While ranked only 27th out of 50 American states in
geographic area, New York ranks fourth in population and has
the third largest economy within the USA, following California
and Texas, respectively (see www.census.gov, accessed 25 Jan
2015). It is also home to New York City, the largest city in the
USA and global center for finance, fashion, and media and
entertainment.
Despite its economic and cultural importance, the state also
contains several regions, especially in the north (i.e., Upstate)
that have been in relative decline. These regions include
Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. A legacy of their former
industrial success, many Upstate regions (along with New York
City) enjoy the presence of internationally renown research
universities (see, for example, Table 1) that attract high levels of
sponsored research dollars; the state ranks second in total federal
R&D funding. However, the state also scores relatively low on
measures of innovation and high-tech employment resulting in
what many state policymakers have termed New York’s
‘innovation gap’ (see, for example, ITIF 2012; Milken 2013).
123
C. S. Hayter
juncture as a barrier to growth, potentially preventing
spinoff transition from one development phase to the
next.
3.2 Data collection
According to Vohora et al. (2004), the initial venture
champion—the academic entrepreneur—plays a key
role in initial startup development. Further, the initial
founder(s) play a particularly important role in the
development of the company, especially university
faculty and graduate student entrepreneurs who pos-
sess relatively unique backgrounds, motivations, and
growth ambitions compared with other types of
entrepreneurs (Boh et al. 2012; Hayter 2011; Pittaway
and Cope 2007).
In order to investigate these entrepreneurship
networks, we obtain contact information for nascent
graduate student and faculty entrepreneurs affiliated
with engineering schools located at research univer-
sities within New York State. We focus on engineer-
ing-relating spinoffs because engineering disciplines
are typically well linked to practical outcomes and
constitute a significant portion of intellectual property
generated in universities (Agrawal and Henderson
2002). Further, we focus on spinoffs established no
more than 2 years prior in order to understand the
evolution of social networks among nascent academic
entrepreneurs—and account for potential recall bias
within our population (Carter et al. 2003; Ruef et al.
2003).
Spinoff contact information was obtained from
university technology transfer offices as well as the
New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority (NYSERDA) and New York Economic
Development Commission.4 Illustrated in Table 1,
spinoffs are drawn from nine research universities,
public and private, constituting a wide range of
engineering areas and locations. As noted, all spinoffs
were established based on technologies derived from
federally funded research.
4
Two technology transfer offices did not respond to our request
for information. Contact information for several spinoffs located
at these universities is public information, made available by a
state entrepreneurship support organization. See Hayter (2016)
for a more in-depth discussion of how data were collected from
TTOs.
A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success 639

Fig. 1 Critical juncture

framework of
entrepreneurial
development. Adapted from
Vohora et al. (2004)

Table 1 New York research institutions represented in the sample

Institution City Ownership Enrollment Medical Engineering
(2012) school (=1) school (=1)

Columbia University New York City Private 28,824 1 1

Cornell University Ithaca Public/ 22,400 1 1
private
New York University New York City Private 43,911 1 1
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy Private 6999 0 1
Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester Private 18,063 0 1
State University of New York at Albany Albany Public 17,142 0 1
State University of New York at Buffalo Buffalo Public 28,952 1 1
State University of New York at Stony Brook Stony Brook Public 24,149 1 1
Syracuse University Syracuse Private 21,029 0 1
University of Rochester Rochester Private 10,510 1 1

We obtained contact information for 27 faculty and
graduate student entrepreneurs whose spinoffs met our
criteria above. A total of 23 spinoffs participated fully
in our study.5 Founding academic entrepreneurs
interviewed for the study included seven graduate
students, three assistant professors, nine associate
professors, and four full professors. Further, we
interviewed a total of 15 other spinoff employees as
5 collective agents as social entities embedded within a
While twenty-five academic entrepreneurs initially agreed to
participate in our study, two individuals did not respond fully to
our data collection efforts.
well as TTOs, university entrepreneurship personnel,
advisors, and funders in order to supplement and
validate data reported by academic entrepreneurs.
Data were collected between 2010 and 2013.
To academic entrepreneurs agreeing to participate
in the study, we first administered an SNA survey.
According to Borgatti and Foster (2003), SNA has
emerged as an effective method for analyzing net-
works. SNA enables scholars to view individual or
web of relationships thereby fitting the goals of our
investigation (Scott 2000). Ego-centric network data

123
640
are collected using a so-called name generator tech-
nique (Renzulli and Aldrich 2005). Accordingly,
academic entrepreneurs within our sample were asked
to list their most important ‘business contacts’ with
whom ‘you have collaborated for the purpose of
establishing your company and/or commercializing
your company’s technology.’6 For each contact,
respondents were also asked to include the full name,
position, and organization. Respondents are asked to
differentiate between strong ties (defined as the receipt
of valuable resources) and weak ties with network
contacts (Jack 2010). Applying Bozeman and Corley’s
(2004) concept of cosmopolitanism7 to entrepreneur-
ship networks, contact location is also requested.
After social network surveys were completed, we
conducted separate interviews among 23 academic
entrepreneurs and selected spinoff employees during
two separate research phases. As noted, we also
interviewed TTOs, university and state entrepreneur-
ship support personnel, entrepreneurship advisors, and
funders. The first phase (phase I) occurred immedi-
ately after the social network survey was administered,
while the second (phase II) occurred approximately
2 years after the initial interviews. Data were collected
in person or over the phone during two separate time
periods, utilizing an open-ended interview template
based on the literature review and accompanying
research questions above. Interviews ranged in length
from one-half hour to two and half hours; most were
approximately 1 h in duration.
Interviews were guided by a narrative approach
(Polkinghorne 1988) whereby respondents were asked
to describe the establishment of their spinoff and its
6
Several studies in the management literature ask respondents
to list their five (5) most important contacts (e.g., Nicolaou and
Birley 2003). However, given that there have been few, if any,
studies on network differences between faculty entrepreneurs
and other types of entrepreneurs, we opt for a more open-ended
request: We do not limit the number of network contacts
reported.
7
Bozeman and Corley (2004) find that connections with
individuals outside of one’s research group, university, or
region—so-called cosmopolitan networks—positively impact
publishing productivity among faculty researchers. Related,
Kenny and Patton (2005), in their study of spinoffs that have
achieved an initial public offering (IPO), find that extra-regional
‘‘entrepreneurial support networks,’’ including venture capital-
ists, lawyers, and accountants, are critical in the biotech
industry, just as Davenport (2005) and Gertler and Levitte
(2005) find that firms are increasingly sourcing ideas
internationally.
123
C. S. Hayter
subsequent development, including its current devel-
opmental state, guided by the critical junctures
framework (Vohora et al. 2004). Referring to their
respective social network survey, academic entrepre-
neurs were also asked to describe the specific contri-
butions provided by their respective business contacts
in order of importance. During the second round of
interviews, respondents were asked to provide an
update of how their spinoff had developed and,
separately, update their SNA survey, describing how
social networks and their corresponding contributions
had evolved over time.
3.3 Data analysis
From the social network survey, we identified the
position (role), affiliated organization, and location of
each individual reported by academic entrepreneurs as
a business contact. From the subsequent interviews,
responses were recorded and transcribed; transcripts
were read as data were collected. Once each round of
data collection was completed, responses were coded
inductively, according to procedures recommended by
Kuckartz (2014) and Saldana (2012).8 After data were
analyzed, respondents were asked to validate the
specific contributions of their network contacts.
From each interview, we were able to reconstruct a
narrative of the entrepreneurial process and thus
determine the current relative developmental state of
each academic entrepreneur’s spinoff company
according to the prescribed critical juncture frame-
work. Further, a comparison of responses among
academic entrepreneurs yielded multiple emergent
themes regarding the specific contributions of network
contacts. Finally, social network data were compared
to the relative entrepreneurial developmental state—
critical juncture—for each spinoff. The results are
reported in Sect. 4.
8
A total of three research team members coded the data,
including the author and two colleagues. According to Krip-
pendorff (2004), agreement among multiple coders increases the
likelihood that data are reliable. The addition of a third coder
allows for a decision to be made when there exist divergent
interpretations of binary data between the two other coders.
Further, a critical element of data validity is intercoder
reliability, the extent to which independent coders evaluate
reported data and reach the same conclusion. Using (1) percent
agreement and (2) Krippendorff’s alpha, we find that all coded
variables exceed accepted thresholds of intercoder reliability,
90 % for and 0.800, respectively.
A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success
Fig. 2 Reported contact
frequency by research phase
4 Empirical results
4.1 Network composition and evolution
Each spinoff is associated with an academic entrepre-
neur who has a social network of business contacts.
The 23 faculty entrepreneurs in the sample reported a
total of 79 and 107 contacts during the first and second
research phases, respectively. The number of reported
business contacts ranges from a minimum of 3 to a
maximum of 7. Figure 2 presents reported contacts by
frequency. For the first phase, a large majority (65 or
82.3 %) of reported contacts are academic, defined as
individuals employed by a university, including other
faculty, students, TTOs, and university entrepreneur-
ship support personnel. The remaining 14 contacts are
comprised of advisors, state and local entrepreneur-
ship services, two professional managers, and an angel
investor.
In the second phase, the overall number of reported
contacts rises to 107; the social networks of respon-
dents have expanded. Though academic contacts (62)
still constitute a majority within the sample, the
number of reported TTOs (8) and university
entrepreneurship support personnel (6) declines (4
and 4, respectively) while additional students are
reported. The number of faculty (30) remains the
same, though a few individual faculty contacts are
641
different. More notably, academic entrepreneurs
report 31 additional non-academic contacts (45 total;
42.1 % of all contacts), including advisors (10),
company partners (10), state/regional entrepreneur-
ship services (9), and angel investors (7). New contact
types are also reported, including a federal govern-
ment representative (Department of Defense), attor-
ney, and a corporate venture capitalist. Also of note,
two contacts reported as advisors in phase I are
subsequently designated as managers, constituting a
total of five managers in the second research phase. In
short, social networks within our sample have evolved
quickly between the two research phases growing
mostly in terms of additional non-academic contacts.
4.2 Specific network composition
and contributions by research phase
Table 2 illustrates the specific network contacts and
primary resource contributions during the two data
collection phases, with new contacts (and phase I
contacts that are not longer included in phase II
networks) highlighted in bold. Changes in contact
contributions are designated with an asterisk. Table 2
also indicates the associated developmental stage of
each spinoff: In the first phase, 22 spinoffs are in the
commitment critical juncture while one spinoff has
achieved credibility; 17 spinoffs remain in the
123
 Table 2 Evolution of networks among respondents
642

Spinoff Phase I network contact Contributions Juncture Phase II network contact Contributions Juncture

123
A1 Faculty Advice, research Commitment Faculty Advice, research Commitment
Faculty Research Faculty Research
TTO Advice, connections TTO Advice, connections
Faculty (out of region) Research
A2 Student Management, influence to establish Student Management, influence to establish Commitment
TTO Advice, connections TTO Advice, connections
Faculty Research
B1 Faculty Advice, research Commitment Faculty Advice, research Commitment
Faculty (out of region) Advice Faculty (out of region) Research, connections
State/regional entre. Connections Manager Management, connections
svc.
Attorney Legal services, connections
Angel investor Connections
B2 Student Co-founder, management Commitment Student Co-founder, management Credibility
Faculty Research Faculty Research
University Entre. Svc. Establishment assistance, Angel investor Funding, advice, management
connections
Company partner Development asst.
Company partner Manufacturing asst.
C1 Faculty Advice, connections Commitment Faculty Advice, connections Commitment
Faculty Advice, research Faculty Advice, research
Company partner Research Company partner Research
State Entre. Svc. Connections, advice State Entre. Svc.a Connections, advice, fundinga
Corporate venture Connections, technical assistance
capitalist
C2 Student Co-founder, management Commitment Student Co-founder, management Commitment
Student Co-founder Student Co-founder
Faculty Co-founder, research Faculty Co-founder, research
Local Entre Svc. Advice, connections Local Entre Svc Advice, connections, spacea
C3 Faculty Co-founder Commitment Faculty Co-founder Commitment
Faculty (out) Research, advice Faculty (out) Research, advice
Student Employee Student Employee
Uni. Entre. Evc. Advice, connections
C. S. Hayter
 Table 2 continued
Spinoff Phase I network contact Contributions Juncture Phase II network contact Contributions Juncture

D1 Student Co-founder Commitment Student Co-founder Credibility

Student Co-founder Student Co-founder
Student Co-founder Student Co-founder
Advisor Advice, connections Advisor–Managera Management, CEOa
Advisor Advice, connections Company partner Development asst.
Univ. Entre. Svc. Advice, connections, funding, Angel investor Funding, advice, connections
education
D2 Faculty Co-founder Commitment Faculty Co-founder Commitment
Student Co-founder, influence to establish Student Co-founder
A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success

Student Co-founder, influence to establish Student Co-founder

Faculty (out of region) Research, advice
Advisor Advice, connections
Univ. Entre. Svc. Advice, connections, funding,
education
Angel funder Advice, connections
D3 Faculty Co-founder Commitment Faculty Co-founder Commitment
Faculty Advice Faculty Advice
Univ. Entre. Svc. Advice, educationa Univ. Entre. Svc. Advice, connectionsa
E1 Student Co-founder Commitment Student Co-founder Credibility
Student Co-founder Student Co-founder
Faculty Advice, connections Faculty Advice, connections
Manager Management, advice
Company partner Research, development asst.
State Entre. Svc. Connections, funding
E2 Student Co-founder Commitment Student Co-founder Commitment
Student Co-founder Student Co-founder
Faculty Advice, connections Student (out of region) Advice
Advisor (parent) Advice
F1 Student Co-founder Commitment Student Co-founder Commitment
Student Co-founder Student Co-founder
Faculty Advice, connections Advisor Advice, connections
Faculty Advice, connections Local Entre. Svc. Space, advice
643

123
 Table 2 continued
644

Spinoff Phase I network contact Contributions Juncture Phase II network contact Contributions Juncture

123
G1 Faculty Co-founder Commitment Faculty Co-founder Commitment
TTO Advice, connections, funding Advisor Advice, connections
Angel Advice, connections
Company partner Technical Assistance
G2 Faculty Co-Founder Commitment Faculty Co-Founder Commitment
Student Co-founder, Influence to establish Student Co-founder, Influence to establish
TTO Advice, connections Advisor Advice, connections
H1 Advisor Advice, connections Credibility Advisor/Manager Managementa, Connections Credibility
Student Co-founder Student Co-founder
Student Co-founder Student Co-founder
Angel investor Advice, connections, funding Angel investor Funding
Company partner Prototyping asst.
Univ. Entre. Svc Advice, connections, space, Company partner Development asst.
educationa
H2 Faculty Co-founder Commitment Faculty Co-founder Commitment
Faculty Co-founder, research Faculty Co-founder, research
Student Co-founder, influence to establish Student Co-founder, influence to establish
Univ. Entre. Svc. Advice, connections, educationa Univ. Entre. Svc. Advice, connections, fundinga
State entre. assistance Advice, connections, funding
Company partner Development asst.
Advisor Legal services
H3 Faculty Co-founder Commitment Faculty Co-founder Credibility
Manager Co-founder, management, advice Manager Co-founder, management, advice
Univ. Entre. Svc. Connections, education Univ. Entre. Intermediary Connections, education
Company partner Development asst. Company partner Development asst.
Regional entre. svc. Connections, funding
I1 Faculty Co-founder, research Commitment Faculty Co-founder, research Commitment
TTO Advice, connections Faculty (out of region) Advice, research
Advisor Advice, connections TTO Advice, connections
State Entre. Assistance Advice, connections Advisor Advice, connections
State Entre Assistance Advice, connections
I2 Faculty Co-founder Commitment Faculty Co-founder Commitment
Faculty Advice Faculty Advice
C. S. Hayter
 Table 2 continued
Spinoff Phase I network contact Contributions Juncture Phase II network contact Contributions Juncture

TTO Advice, connections TTO Advice, connections

Advisor Advice, connections
J1 Faculty Advice, influence to establish Commitment Faculty Advice, influence to establish Commitment
Faculty (out of region) Advice Faculty (out of region) Advice
Advisor Advice, connections Advisor Connections, managementa
Company partner Development asst.
State Entre. Svc. Advice, funding
J2 Faculty Co-founder Commitment Faculty Co-founder Commitment
Student Co-founder, management Student Co-founder, management
A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success

TTO Advice, connections

J3 Manager Co-founder Commitment Manager Co-foundera Credibility
Faculty Research Faculty Co-founder, research
Student Employee Student Co-founder
TTO Advice, connections
Advisor Advice, connections Advisor Management, connectionsa
State Entre. Svc. Advice, connections State entre. svc. Funding, connectionsa
Angel investor Advice, connections
Fed. Government Rep. Development asst., Connections,
funding
Changed contacts in Bold
a
Changed contribution
645

123
646 C. S. Hayter

commitment phase during phase II, while 5 additional Table 3 Primary contact contributions
spinoffs (6 total) have progressed to the credibility Contact Contributions
critical juncture. No spinoff in the sample has
progressed beyond the credibility phase. Table 3 Faculty Researcher Advice
further summarizes the primary contributions of each Research
contact type. Co-founder
In keeping with the entrepreneurship network Influence to establish
literature, nearly all contacts provide advice as well Student Co-founder
as connections to other contacts. Advice and connec- Influence to establish
tions received from faculty connections primarily Management
relate to research assistance and other facets associ- Employee
ated with the early stages of spinoff establishment. TTO Advice

Further, network connections made through other Connections

faculty are often limited to intra-university contacts, Uni. Entre. Services Advice
Education
such as the TTO or university entrepreneurship
Connections
support personnel.
Establishment assistance
For faculty-established spinoffs, contributions from
Funding
graduate students relate primarily to their role as co-
Space
founder, their commitment to entrepreneurial action
Advisor Advice
(‘influence to establish’), and role as spinoff manager.
Connections
For student-established spinoffs, fellow students typ-
(Later) management
ically serve as co-founders. Discussed below, both
State/regional entre. Connections
TTOs and university entrepreneurship support per- services
sonnel were deemed important for advice and con- Advice
nections, though the latter offered more services, Funding
including education programs, physical space, and Space
funding programs to support spinoff success. Simi- Manager Advice
larly, local, federal, and state/regional entrepreneur- Management
ship support programs offer advice, connections, Connections
funding, technical assistance, and physical space. Local entre. service Advice
Among the contributions of non-academic contacts, Company partner Advice (related to
respondents deem management (from managers and commercialization)
advisors) and funding (from angel investors) as critical Research
resources for spinoff development. Further, company Development assistance
partners were important for (joint) applied research Prototyping and manufacturing
projects, technology development assistance, proto- Angel investor Advice
type development, and manufacturing. Connections
Funding
4.3 Explaining network evolution: the role Management
of knowledge intermediaries Federal gov’t rep. Technical assistance
Connections
From the sections above, we find that the contributions Funding
of faculty and students focus on motivating and Attorney Legal services (specialized advice)
undertaking spinoff establishment as well as more Connections
basic research functions. Beyond faculty and students, Corporate venture investor Advice
network contacts provide an array of financial, tech- Connections

nical, and human resources as well as social Technical assistance

123
A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success
Fig. 3 Single academic
intermediary model
Fig. 4 Single non-
academic intermediary
model
resources—ties—to other contacts who can provide
resources important for spinoff development. Further,
we find that the contributions of knowledge interme-
diaries reported in our sample vary substantially.
Based on these data and the sections above, we
construct three conceptual models (Figs. 3, 4, 5) to
647
explain how social networks among academic entre-
preneurs (co)evolve with the development of univer-
sity spinoffs and the role of knowledge intermediaries
therein.
Each figure represents the ego-centric social net-
works of spinoffs within the entrepreneurial
123
648
Fig. 5 Ecosystem
intermediary model
commitment phase (left side) compared to the network
of spinoffs that have progressed to the credibility
phase (right side). The large circle in the bottom left-
hand corner side of each diagram (within each figure)
represents an academic entrepreneur. Further, ties to
faculty researchers and graduate students are ubiqui-
tous among academic entrepreneurs in the sample
represented in the bottom right-hand side. As men-
tioned, contacts in the social network can possess three
possible types of ties with other contacts: strong ties
(dark, thick lines), weak ties (thinner, dashed lines), or
nonexistent ties.
4.3.1 Single academic intermediary model
The majority of spinoffs in our sample had yet to
progress to the credibility phase during our 3-year
study represented in the left diagram within Fig. 3.
Academic entrepreneurs are also connected to aca-
demic contacts, such as TTOs and university
entrepreneurship support personnel represented by
Tie 1A. From an organizational perspective, we
designate these academic contacts constituents of
first-order academic intermediaries to reflect their
potential connective role within the network: TTOs
and other academic contacts may or may not possess
relationships with non-academic contacts (Tie 1B)
123
C. S. Hayter
useful to spinoff success. Regardless, the social
networks of academic entrepreneurs in the commit-
ment phase do not extend beyond first-order academic
intermediaries represented by Tie 1C.
In the single academic intermediary model, spinoff
progression is dependent on both the resources (such
as access to early-stage funding) and the quality of that
individual’s ties to non-academic contacts (repre-
sented by Tie 1D). While no spinoff in the model had
yet to progress to the credibility phase, an academic
contact in at least one university within our sample has
connected academic entrepreneurs to non-academic
contacts that can potentially be helpful to spinoff
development (Tie 1E). For at least one spinoff, the
non-academic contact possessed an existing relation-
ship with a local angel funder (Tie 1F) and connected
this individual to the academic entrepreneur (Tie 1G),
though no funding has been received thus far. We
deem this secondary network connection second
order.
4.3.2 Single non-academic intermediary model
Figure 4 represents the single non-academic interme-
diary model whereby, in addition to academic contacts
(Tie 2A), entrepreneurship networks include at least
one non-academic contact (Tie 2B). Existing
A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success
connections to non-academic contacts were first
established by academic entrepreneurs while working
in cooperative research centers, consulting with
industry, prior industry experience, friends, and
chance meetings. In at least three cases, student
academic entrepreneurs connected other spinoff
founder(s) (faculty and/or other students) with non-
academic contacts with whom they had worked on
student research projects (Tie 2C).
For spinoffs in Fig. 4 that progress to the
credibility phase, relationships with non-academic
contacts (Ties 2E and 2F) strengthen as ties to
academic intermediaries become relatively weaker
(Tie 2D). Further, the single non-academic contact
not only provides an important resource (e.g.,
management), it also possesses connections to
other non-academic contacts (Tie 2G), which are
deemed first order. A non-academic contact can
thus connect the academic entrepreneur(s) to other
individuals who can provide resources (e.g., angel
funding) important for entrepreneurial development
(Tie 2H).
4.3.3 University ecosystem model
Figure 5 represents networks of academic entrepre-
neurs in what we deem the university ecosystem
model. Among spinoffs that have yet to achieve the
credibility phase, academic entrepreneurs (faculty and
students) are connected to multiple academic contacts
(Ties 3A and 3C), including representatives from
entrepreneurship ‘boot camps,’ entrepreneurship coor-
dinators, and entrepreneurs in residence. Contacts can
also be non-academic and include state entrepreneur-
ship support personnel, advisors, managers, company
partners, and angel investors. In cases where academic
entrepreneurs do not possess strong ties to contacts,
they often know these individuals and are familiar
with their services (Tie 3B). Further, academic
entrepreneurs observed that network contacts seem
to know and work with each other, represented by Tie
3D. For example, academic entrepreneurs working
with one university’s entrepreneurship coordinator—
what we term an entrepreneurship ombudsman (rep-
resented in this case by Tie 3A)—are typically
introduced to a representative from a state
entrepreneurship support program. Similarly, engi-
neering students attending a proof-of-concept/product
development workshop are introduced to a
649
‘management matchmaker’ within that university’s
business school.
We also found that academic entrepreneurs drew
from the ties of their co-founders to connect with
contacts important to the success of their spinoff. For
example, a faculty entrepreneur established a spinoff
with a graduate student who, during establishment,
introduced their co-founder to a retired company
executive. The graduate student previously met and
closely worked with this ‘advisor’ during a year-long,
applied capstone project required for graduation.
Contacts in the ecosystem model have ties of
varying strength to non-academic contacts, given their
different functions (represented by Ties 3E and 3F).
For example, a student business plan competition
coordinator will likely have different contacts com-
pared the manager of a technology-focused incubator,
just as contacts may also differ by technology and
application. The availability of useful non-academic
contacts will depend on the characteristics of the
region surrounding the university as well as the
institutional mechanisms that exist for engaging these
individuals. Non-academic contacts may or not know
each other (Tie 3G).
Networks among spinoffs in the ecosystem model
that progress to the credibility phase are distinct from
the other two models. First, academic entrepreneurs
are exposed to a variety of entrepreneurship support
mechanisms prior to the establishment of their spinoff.
For students, some of these mechanisms include
‘formal’ classes (i.e., part of a university’s degree
program) on product development, entrepreneurship,
and business plan development as well as the afore-
mentioned team-oriented, multi-disciplinary, prob-
lem-focused capstone projects. Other support
mechanisms include business plan competitions, net-
working events, ‘TED talks’ by successful academic
entrepreneurs, hack-a-thons, and entrepreneurship
clubs that not only provide greater familiarity with
entrepreneurship, but also provide venues used to
engage non-academic contacts, typically within sur-
rounding communities.
Another key difference is the relationships among
academic and non-academic contacts (Ties 3H and
3K); as mentioned, academic entrepreneurs observed
that university program managers, funders, profes-
sional managers, and state entrepreneurship support
personnel know and often ‘hang out’ with each other.
Each of these relationships becomes a potential point
123
650
of network entry for academic entrepreneurs. Aca-
demic entrepreneurs are often referred to different
services and offerings, depending on their specific
interests and needs (Tie 3I). For spinoffs progressing
to the credibility phase, these (multiple) interactions
helped collectively socialize faculty and students to
the technical, funding, and managerial realities of
entrepreneurship, a world to which few academic
entrepreneurs have been exposed.
Contacts do this through specific services—and
concurrent engagement with relevant, non-academic
contacts. In turn, non-academic contacts have an
opportunity to observe and work with academic
entrepreneurs, allowing them to build trust among
these individuals before providing valuable resources
(Tie 3J). Once non-academic individuals feel com-
fortable with the relative developmental state of a
spinoff, they may introduce academic entrepreneurs to
other non-academic contacts (such as technologists
and venture capitalists) who can help aid entrepre-
neurial development (Tie 3K). Interestingly, positive
interactions between non-academic contacts and uni-
versity contacts helped build trust and positive work-
ing relationships important for future academic
entrepreneurs (Tie 3L).
5 Discussion
In keeping with the extant entrepreneurship network
literature, our research shows that social networks are
critical pathways through which academic entrepre-
neurs access resources and other contacts important to
the development of their spinoff. However, unique
network-related challenges exist for university spin-
offs relative to other, non-academic entrepreneurial
ventures. Specifically, academic entrepreneurs must
bridge a yawning social gap between traditional,
academic social networks and more market-oriented
entrepreneurial networks needed to progress to the
credibility phase—our proxy for nascent entrepre-
neurial success.
We find that academic entrepreneurs in the early
stages of spinoff establishment define ‘business con-
tacts’ in a way that reflects their primary professional
environment as faculty and graduate students. Nearly
two-thirds of their network contacts in the first
research phase are comprised of other academic
contacts, especially faculty researchers and students
123
C. S. Hayter
from their home institution. Faculty colleagues and
graduate students provide influence, advice, and
management support important to motivate and sup-
port the initial establishment of a university spinoff.
This finding comports with a robust literature that
shows that social capital is critical to the exchange of
information and resources within an in intra-organi-
zational network context (Coleman 1988; Krackhardt
1999). However, within an academic context, homo-
philous networks may also constrain future entrepre-
neurial development if academic entrepreneurs cannot
access contacts embedded within other social net-
works important to the development of their spinoff.
Asking how ‘network bridging’ occurs, we created
a taxonomy of social network evolution to illustrate
our findings. Supporting previous literature on absorp-
tive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal 1990) and more
recent work on network competence (Ritter and
Gemünden 2003) or capability (Walter et al. 2006),
we found that first-order academic and non-academic
contacts are important for entrepreneurial develop-
ment. When successful, contacts and their associated
knowledge intermediaries help socialize faculty entre-
preneurs to market-oriented motivations, values, and
practices that they may not otherwise receive in an
academic environment. Further, bridging contacts
connect academic entrepreneurs with (other) non-
academic contacts who can provide resources and
other contacts important for the development of their
spinoff.
For most academic entrepreneurs in our sample,
TTOs or university entrepreneurship support services
were the first point of contact related to the establish-
ment and development of their spinoff; these knowl-
edge intermediaries were viewed as a primary source
of (nominal) resources and connections, in many cases
years after spinoff establishment (i.e., during our
second research phase). Deemed the single academic
intermediary model, spinoff development is largely
dependent on the capability of one individual (e.g., a
technology transfer officer) and the size and compo-
sition of his or her respective social networks. At its
best (i.e., University G), this model is functional when
universities are embedded within entrepreneurial
regions and the academic contact is well connected
and has prior business experience.
However, in most cases, spinoffs located at univer-
sities embodying the single academic intermediary
model were limited in their development. Although
A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success
single academic intermediaries, especially TTOs, are
conceptualized in the literature as the critical path for
entrepreneurial development (Bradley et al. 2013a, b),
our research finds that affiliated individuals often lack
social networks required to enable spinoff success. At
its worst, the single academic intermediary model can
slow or even inhibit the growth of entrepreneurship
networks by focusing on licensing and equity issues in
lieu of ways to best enable spinoff development.
While most respondents viewed single academic
intermediaries positively (or at least agnostically),
several respondents indicated that they had avoided
working with their respective TTO for a number of
reasons, including their predominant focus on life
science technologies, preference for large company
licensing over startup support, greed, slow response
times, and lack of entrepreneurship support capability.
Reported examples of ‘TTO avoidance’ include the
development of core spinoff IP that does not relate to
their university license, encouraging student co-
founders to claim IP within the university (within a
university that allows graduate students to retain their
IP) and refusing to consult with potential external IP
licensees.
Entrepreneurship network relationships ascribed
to the single non-academic intermediary model are
more ad hoc and develop despite the presence of a
single academic intermediary. The majority of ties
among spinoffs located at universities ascribing to
this model came from prior working relationships
with industry through joint research projects and
consulting. Further, reliance on non-academic con-
tacts was seen as a way to avoid single academic
contacts. Other non-academic relationships formed
after TTOs released intellectual property back to the
inventor once they were unable to license the
technology. Finally, visible in two cases within our
sample, spinoffs can be established without a formal
intellectual property relationship with their home
university. The connective role of single non-
academic contacts seems to highlight an research
opportunity within Yusef’s (2008) framework: What
is the role of advisors, company personnel, and other
non-financial intermediaries important to academic
entrepreneurs within this study, but not defined as
such in the literature?
The ecosystem model seems to offer a superior
approach for bridging disparate social networks
important for spinoff success. Within the model,
651
network ties coevolve, beginning long before spinoffs
are established—with different co-founders often
developing ties with different academic and non-
academic contacts. Several universities within our
sample have established multiple knowledge interme-
diaries that offer students and faculty formal courses,
workshops, product/technology development semi-
nars, mentoring, funding, and networking services
designed to promote and support academic
entrepreneurship.9 These services are largely open
access creating a high level of intra-university
dynamism: Most individuals interested in
entrepreneurship are welcome. Further, engagement
of myriad non-academic contacts among disparate
knowledge intermediaries creates multiple opportuni-
ties for ‘mixing’; a diverse constellation of first-order
academic and non-academic contacts allows academic
entrepreneurs to connect with other important (second
order) non-academic contacts, including professional
managers, company researchers, and angel investors.
Thus, the combination of connections to important
non-academic contacts and parallel improvement in
the entrepreneurial skills of academic entrepreneurs
(and related development of their technologies and
products) together creates an endorsement effect
reducing resource investment risk for other network
contacts, especially angel and venture capitalists
(Shane and Stuart 2002). In other words, the more
opportunities that academic entrepreneurs have to
interact and—importantly—build substantive rela-
tionships with non-academic contacts, the more likely
they are to have access to resources and other contacts
important to spinoff success.
In addition to the dynamic and multifaceted nature
of contacts within the ecosystem model, another key
difference is the presence of what we term an
‘entrepreneurship ombudsman.’ The purpose of this
individual is to act as a neutral coordinator to promote
the interests of academic entrepreneurs, remove
barriers to their success, and connect these individual
to entrepreneurship support mechanisms both inside
9
Interestingly, while several single academic intermediary
model universities also offered entrepreneurship support mech-
anisms, access to these resources was largely at the discretion of
one ‘gatekeeper’, the TTO, and often only in exchange for an
equity stake in the spinoff. To be sure, ecosystem model
universities have TTOs, but they are but one of a constellation of
resource providers.
123
652
and outside the university.10 Further, entrepreneurship
ombudsman is tasked with the creation of an
entrepreneurship strategy whereby curricular and
entrepreneurship support mechanisms are aligned in
support of academic entrepreneurship thus building an
entrepreneurial culture. In practice, an entrepreneur-
ship ombudsman does not replace the compliance and
intellectual property management function of TTOs,
but—conceptually—represents a first-order special-
ized intermediary solely focused on improving the
entrepreneurial success of university spinoffs (Yusef
2008).
In summary, our university ecosystems model most
closely approximates Christensen and Rosenbloom’s
(1995) ecosystem definition: nested, loosely organized
academic and non-academic intermediaries that work
collectively and strategically to promote and support
academic entrepreneurship. An entrepreneurial mis-
sion drives action, not one ‘lead’ intermediary nor a
priority, for example, to earn licensing revenue.
Entrepreneurial university ecosystems therefore con-
stitute a specific subsystem within the larger context of
business and regional innovation ecosystems that is
critical to economic and social development.
6 Conclusion
As mentioned, spinoffs are one vehicle through which
entrepreneurial universities can contribute to regional
economies (Audretsch 2014; Shane 2004; Slaughter
and Rhoades 2004). What differentiates universities in
our sample—and perhaps their contributions to eco-
nomic development—is how they view and manage
academic entrepreneurship vis-à-vis knowledge inter-
mediaries. In other words, how do research universi-
ties view, manage, and create (or sunset) knowledge
intermediaries in furtherance of academic
entrepreneurship? We investigate this question by
10
Two universities in our sample have created these positions.
Administrators interviewed during the project posited that
coordinator positions were created to differentiate the encour-
agement and support of academic entrepreneurship from how
those support mechanisms (and the university writ large) are
funded. At one university, an administrator spoke about prior
conflict of interest situations between TTOs and the interests of
academic entrepreneurs, a specific scenario that the university
had hoped to avoid in the future with the creation of the
coordinator position.
123
C. S. Hayter
inductively examining the composition, contributions,
and evolution of social networks among academic
entrepreneurs to explain the development of university
spinoffs and the role of knowledge intermediaries
therein.
Most universities within our sample view academic
entrepreneurship as a primary responsibility of
TTOs—a single, specialized knowledge intermedi-
ary—possibly supported by a few ‘add on’ support
services, such as an early-stage venture fund or
incubator. This finding aligns with Clarysse et al.
(2014) recent finding that knowledge ecosystems are
often disconnected from the business ecosystems
needed to apply and commercialize new university
knowledge; single academic contacts can reinforce the
academic nature of university spinoffs. In other words,
traditional university knowledge intermediaries and
their constituent representatives may not be capable of
fully bridging the social gaps between academic and
non-academic (industry) networks.
Further, our research provides support for how
Powell and colleagues’ (2009) cross-realm transposi-
tion occurs. A vibrant entrepreneurial university
ecosystem conceives of spinoff performance and its
associated economic impact in terms of social net-
works—or in terms of an overall network architec-
ture—needed to provide the resources and connections
important for entrepreneurial success. While univer-
sities can act as anchor organizations within a region,
their entrepreneurial contributions depend on the
existence and interrelationship of loosely coordinated,
heterogeneous knowledge intermediaries guided by a
strong ethos to encourage and support academic
entrepreneurship. Thus, the critical contribution of
entrepreneurial university ecosystems, as conceptual-
ized here, lies in their ability to facilitate network
bridging in order to disseminate and commercialize
new knowledge vis-à-vis university spinoffs. Taking
Clarysse et al. (2014) by example, the structure and
underlying social networks of knowledge intermedi-
aries may explain macro-level disconnections
between knowledge and business ecosystems in
Flanders. Reconciling macro-level economic obser-
vations with micro-level investigations of knowledge
intermediaries and the associated social networks of
affiliated individuals no doubt presents a promising
research opportunity for scholars.
Building off recent work (Lubynsky 2013; Boh
et al. 2012; Pittaway and Cope 2007), another
A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success
contribution of this paper is to highlight the role of
graduate students in academic entrepreneurship. Not
only are graduate students important for motivating
and undertaking spinoff establishment, but also we
find that they often connect other academic entrepre-
neurs to academic and non-academic contacts that
they met during previous entrepreneurship programs
and experiences. Scholars would do well to understand
better the role of students in university spinoffs,
including the establishment and success and contri-
butions of student-run spinoffs, their strengths and
weaknesses.
Based on these findings, universities and the
regions in which they are embedded could work
together to view social networks as a strategic asset
important for technology commercialization and eco-
nomic development. Individual universities could
investigate the extent to which existing entrepreneur-
ship support systems favor a single intermediary or
ecosystem model, examining the nature and contribu-
tions of networks among current and aspiring aca-
demic entrepreneurs. Further, universities could
implement alternative intellectual property policies
that deemphasize a single academic intermediary
model approach (vis-à-vis the TTO) while creating
and strengthening other opportunities to engage non-
academic contacts in other education, research, out-
reach, and entrepreneurship support efforts. For their
part, states and regions could assist universities to
understand existing business and external ecosystems
while creating knowledge intermediaries to connect
them with entrepreneurial university ecosystems. For
example, though limited to ‘cleantech’ within New
York State, NYSERDA’s grant, technology develop-
ment, and entrepreneur-in-residence programs pro-
vided both tangible resources and connections
valuable to the success of spinoffs within our sample.
Future investigations will hopefully overcome
some of the data limitations of the paper. First, while
networks are conceptualized dynamically, the paper
relies upon a relatively small sample of academic
entrepreneurs limited to one region of the USA.
Further, our investigation focuses on spinoffs from
engineering schools. Scholars would do well to
investigate spinoffs within other disciplines such as
energy and the life sciences, comparing how network
composition, contributions, and evolution might dif-
fer. And while we chose to sample nascent academic
entrepreneurs, methodological concerns about recall
653
bias nonetheless remain, including the propensity to
view the past with ‘rose-colored lenses’ (Carter et al.
2003).
Future empirical work might also seek to validate
and strengthen our conceptual models of entrepre-
neurial university ecosystems. Further, scholars could
undertake additional examinations of the composition,
contributions, and evolution of entrepreneurship net-
works within the context of other universities within
other regions of the USA. One obvious area of neglect
was examining the extent to which the regional
presence of useful non-academic contacts determines
the structure of university ecosystems. Rhetorically, to
what extent does a university’s geographic location
necessitate a specific entrepreneurship support strat-
egy—and what does this strategy look like?
Finally, future investigations might examine the
extent to which entrepreneurial university ecosystems
and the regions in which they are embedded collec-
tively foster social and geographic proximity between
academic entrepreneurs and contacts valuable to the
future of their spinoff (Tartari et al. 2014). Put
differently, to what degree can academic entrepreneur-
ship networks be engineered, especially given the
technical and geographic heterogeneity among uni-
versity spinoffs? Armed with this research, university
leaders and policymakers will be better equipped to
help the entrepreneurial university reach its full
economic and social development potential.
Acknowledgments I am grateful to the Ewing Marion
Kauffman Foundation for their financial support of this
research and also special thanks to Marla Parker and two
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and
suggestions.
References
Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B.
(2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneur-
ship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation
ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdepen-
dence affects firm performance in new technology genera-
tions. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333.
Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in con-
text: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Manage-
ment Science, 48(1), 44–60.
Audretsch, D. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the
university for the entrepreneurial society. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 39, 313–321.
123
654
Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (2000). Flexible recycling and high-
technology entrepreneurship. In M. Kenney (Ed.), Under-
standing silicon valley (pp. 165–189). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2012). University
technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and
students in spinoffs. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in
organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of
Management, 29(6), 991–1013.
Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration
strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human
capital. Research Policy, 33, 599–616.
Bozeman, B., Dietz, J. S., & Gaughan, M. (2001). Scientific and
technical human capital: An alternative model for research
evaluation. International Journal of Technology Manage-
ment, 22(8), 616–630.
Bradley, S., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013a). Models and
methods of university technology transfer. Foundations
and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(6), 571–650.
Bradley, S., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013b). Proof of
concept centers in the U.S.: An exploratory look. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 38, 349–381.
Braunerhjelm, P., Ács, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B.
(2010). The missing link: Knowledge diffusion and
entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business
Economics, 34(2), 105–125.
Carter, N., Gartner, W., Shaver, K., & Gatewood, E. (2003). The
career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Busi-
ness Venturing, 18, 13–39.
Casper, S. (2007). How do technology clusters emerge and
become sustainable? Social network formation and inter-
firm mobility within the San Diego biotechnology cluster.
Research Policy, 36, 438–455.
Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. (1995). Explaining the
attacker’s advantage: Technological paradigms, organiza-
tional dynamics and the value network. Research Policy,
24(2), 233–257.
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. (2014).
Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between
knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy, 43,
1164–1176.
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new
perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human
capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Colombo, M. G., Cumming, D. J., & Vismara, S. (2016).
Governmental venture capital for innovative young firms.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 10–24.
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in
scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quanti-
tative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Croce, A., Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2014). Venture capital
enters academia: An analysis of university-managed funds.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 688–715.
Davenport, S. (2005). Exploring the role of proximity in SME
knowledge-acquisition. Research Policy, 34(5), 683–701.
123
C. S. Hayter
Dietz, J., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and
productivity: Industry experience as scientific and techni-
cal human capital. Research Policy, 34, 349–367.
Doutriaux, J. (1987). Growth pattern of academic entrepre-
neurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 285–297.
Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ
and does it matter? Journal of Technology Transfer,
29(3–4), 269–285.
Feldman, M., & Desrochers, P. (2004). Truth for its own sake:
academic culture and technology transfer at the Johns
Hopkins University. Minerva, 42(2), 105–126.
Florida, R. L., & Kenney, M. (1988). Venture capital, high
technology and regional development. Regional Studies,
22, 33–48.
Franklin, S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and
surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 127–141.
Gertler, M. S., & Levitte, Y. M. (2005). Local nodes in global
networks: The geography of knowledge flows in biotech-
nology innovation. Industry and Innovation, 12(4),
487–507.
Gray, D. O. & Boardman, C (2010). Special issue on cooperative
research centers: policy, process, and outcome perspec-
tives. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks.
Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 203–215.
Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. (2005). Industry funding and
university professors’ research performance. Research
Policy, 34, 932–950.
Hayter, C. S. (2011). In search of the profit-maximizing actor:
Motivations and definitions of success from nascent aca-
demic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer,
36(3), 340–352.
Hayter, C. S. (2013a). Harnessing university entrepreneurship
for economic growth: Factors of success among university
spinoffs. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 18–28.
Hayter, C. S. (2013b). Conceptualizing knowledge-based
entrepreneurship networks: Perspectives from the litera-
ture. Small Business Economics, 41, 899–911.
Hayter, C. S. (2015). Social networks and the success of uni-
versity spinoffs: Toward an agenda for regional growth.
Economic Development Quarterly, 29(1), 3–13.
Hayter, C. S. (2016). Constraining entrepreneurial develop-
ment: A knowledge-based view of social networks
among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 45,
475–490.
Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2015). On the economic impact of
university proof-of-concept centers. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 40, 178–183.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: What
the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strat-
egy, innovation and sustainability. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. (2012).
2012 State new economy index. Washington, DC.
Jack, S. L. (2010). Approaches to studying networks: Implica-
tions and outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1),
120–137.
Johannisson, B., & Monsted, M. (1997). Contextualizing
entrepreneurial networking. International Journal of
Management and Organization, 27, 109–137.
A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success
Jong, S. (2008). Academic organizations and new industrial
fields: Berkeley and Stanford after the rise of biotechnol-
ogy. Research Policy, 37, 1267–1282.
Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial geographies:
Support networks in three high-technology industries.
Economic Geography, 81(2), 201–228.
Kenney, M., & von Burg, U. (1999). Technology and path
dependence: The divergence between silicon valley and
route 128. Industrial and Corporate Change, 8(1), 67–103.
Krackhardt, D. (1999). The ties that torture: Simmelian tie
analysis in Organizations. Research in the Sociology of
Organizations, 16, 183–210.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some
common misconceptions and recommendations. Human
Communication Research, 30, 411–433.
Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to
methods, practice and using software. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Laur, I., Klofsten, M., & Bienkowska, D. (2012). Catching
regional development dreams: A study of cluster initiatives
as intermediaries. European Planning Studies, 20(11),
1909–1921.
Link, A. N., & Ruhm, C. J. (2009). Bringing science to market:
Commercializing from NIH SBIR awards. Economics of
Innovation and New Technology, 4, 381–402.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2006). U.S. university research parks.
Journal of Productivity Analysis, 25, 43–55.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university
research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23,
661–674.
Lubynsky, R. (2013). Critical challenges to nascent academic
entrepreneurs: From lab bench to innovation, University of
Maryland, unpublished dissertation.
Mian, S. A. (1996). Assessing value-added contributions to
university technology business incubators to tenant firms.
Research Policy, 25, 325–335.
Mian, S. A. (1997). Assessing and managing the university
technology business incubator: An integrative framework.
Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 251–285.
Mian, S. A. (2011). University’s involvement in technology
business incubation: What theory and practice tell us? In-
ternational Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management, 13(2), 113–121.
Mian, S., Fayolle, A., & Lamine, W. (2012). Building sustain-
able regional platforms for incubating science and tech-
nology businesses Evidence from US and French science
and technology parks. The International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 13(4), 235–247.
Milken Institute. (2013). 2012 State technology and science
index. CA: Santa Monica.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of
competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.
Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social
capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based aca-
demic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-
tice, 31(6), 909–935.
Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003). Social networks in organi-
zational emergence: The university spinout phenomenon.
Management Science, 49(12), 1702–1725.
655
O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists
commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 23–43.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2004). Knowledge networks as
channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the
Boston Biotechnology Community. Organization Science,
15, 617–632.
Phan, P., & Siegel, D. (2006). The effectiveness of university
technology transfer: Lessons learned. Foundations and
Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–144.
Piore, M., & Sabel, C. (1984). The second industrial divide:
Possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic Books.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A
systematic review of the evidence. International Small
Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510.
Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human
sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Powell, W., Packalen, K., & Whittington, K. (2009). Organi-
zational and institutional genesis: The emergence of high-
tech clusters in the life sciences. In J. Padgett & W. Powell
(Eds.), The organization of and markets. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2011). The evolution
of entrepreneurial competencies: A longitudinal study of
university spin-off venture emergence. Journal of Man-
agement Studies, 48(6), 1314–1345.
Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2015) The transfor-
mation of network ties to develop entrepreneurial compe-
tencies for spin-offs. Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, 27(7–8), 430–457.
Renzulli, L. A., & Aldrich, H. (2005). Who can you turn to: Tie
activation within core business discussion networks. Social
Forces, 84, 323–342.
Ritter, T., & Gemünden, H. (2003). Network competence: It’s
impact on innovation success and its antecedents. Journal
of Business Research, 56, 745–755.
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Jour-
nal of Political Economy, 98, 71–102.
Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure
of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation
among US entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review,
68(2), 195–222.
Saldana, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative
researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Schoonhoven, C.B., & Eisenhardt, K. (1989). The impact of
incubator region on the creation and survival of new
semiconductor ventures in the U.S. 1978–1986, Report to
the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, August.
Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University
spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton, MA: Edward
Elgar.
Shane, S., & Cable, D. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the
financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3),
364–381.
123
656
Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and
the performance of university start-ups. Management Sci-
ence, 48(1), 154–170.
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the
impact of university science parks on research productiv-
ity: Exploratory firm-level evidence from the United
Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organiza-
tion, 23, 1357–1369.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and
the new economy: Markets, state and higher education.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slotte-Kock, S., & Coviello, N. (2010). Entrepreneurship
research on network processes: A review and ways for-
ward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1),
31–57.
Svensson, P., Klofsten, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2012). An entre-
preneurial university strategy for renewing a declining
industrial city: The Norrköping way. European Planning
Studies, 20(4), 505–525.
Tartari, V., Perkmann, M., & Salter, A. (2014). In good com-
pany: The influence of peers on industry engagement by
academic scientists. Research Policy, 43, 1189–1203.
Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial universi-
ties: Socio-economi impacts of academic entrepreneurship
in a European region. Economic Development Quarterly,
27(1), 40–55.
Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
123
C. S. Hayter
van Praag, C., & Versloot, P. (2007). What is the value of
entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small
Business Economics, 29(4), 351–382.
Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures
in the development of university high-tech spin-out com-
panies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175.
Walcott, S. M. (2002). Analyzing an innovative environment:
San Diego as a bioscience beachhead. Economic Devel-
opment Quarterly, 16(2), 99–114.
Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network
capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university
spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing,
21(4), 541–567.
Whittington, K., Owen-smith, J., & Powell, W. (2009). Net-
works, propinquity and innovation in knowledge-intensive
industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 90–122.
Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007).
Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Northampton, MA:
Edward Elgar.
Youtie, J., & Shipiro, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A
case study of the transformation of university roles in
regional technological and economic development. Re-
search Policy, 37, 1188–1204.
Yusef, S. (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between
universities and businesses. Research Policy, 37, 1167–1174.
Zara, S. A., & Nambisan, S. (2012). Entrerpeneurship and
strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business Hori-
zons, 55(3), 219–229.